A trial substantially progressed cannot be transferred merely due to changed circumstances or inconvenience.

The petitioner, the sole accused in Sessions Trial No. 204/2025 arising from Crime No. 81/2022 registered at Mahila Police Station, Durg, for offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, sought transfer of the trial from the Principal Sessions Judge, Dantewada, back to Durg.

The trial had initially been pending at Durg but was transferred to Dantewada by order dated 3 December 2025 in TPCR No. 27 of 2025, principally due to the complainant’s apprehension of threat, her mother’s medical condition and proposed evidence, and pending matrimonial proceedings at Dantewada.

Subsequently, the complainant and other material prosecution witnesses were examined, the complainant’s mother was no longer required to testify, and the matrimonial proceedings were decided in the petitioner’s favour.

At the time of the present petition, only the medical expert and the Investigating Officer remained to be examined.

The petitioner relied on the changed circumstances, the location of his defence witnesses and counsel at Durg, financial hardship, and the age-related health condition of his senior counsel.

The State opposed the transfer.

Whether the subsequent change in circumstances after the earlier transfer order justified transferring Sessions Trial No. 204/2025 from Dantewada back to Durg under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

Whether the petitioner’s alleged inconvenience, financial burden, location of defence witnesses and counsel, and the health condition of senior counsel made such transfer expedient in the interest of justice or necessary to secure a fair and impartial trial.

Section 447 BNSS empowers the High Court to transfer a criminal case where a fair and impartial trial cannot be had, an issue of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or transfer is otherwise expedient in the interest of justice or for the general convenience of the parties and witnesses.

A subsequent change in circumstances may be relevant to a fresh transfer request, but the disappearance of the grounds supporting an earlier transfer does not, by itself, justify retransferring the case.

Convenience must be balanced against the stage of the proceedings and the overall interests of justice; mere inconvenience or additional expense is insufficient where the trial has substantially progressed and no prejudice to a fair defence is established.

The trial court may accommodate counsel’s health-related difficulties while regulating the proceedings in accordance with law.

The Court acknowledged that the circumstances underlying the earlier transfer had materially changed: the principal prosecution witnesses had been examined, the complainant’s mother was no longer required as a witness, and the matrimonial proceedings had concluded.

However, the prosecution evidence was at its concluding stage, with only two witnesses remaining.

Retransferring the case to Durg at that advanced stage was likely to cause further delay rather than promote expeditious disposal.

The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he would not receive a fair and impartial trial at Dantewada or that continuation there had become prejudicial or otherwise inexpedient in the interest of justice.

His inconvenience, additional expense, and counsel’s health condition could be addressed by the trial court and did not warrant transfer of the entire proceeding.

The Transfer Petition was accordingly dismissed.

The Principal Sessions Judge, Dantewada, was directed to make all endeavours to conclude the remaining prosecution evidence and thereafter proceed with the trial expeditiously in accordance with law.

A copy of the order was directed to be transmitted to the trial court for compliance.